Street View is great, but only gives you a view of a very small area and only from the ground level. A fully interactive 3D view can give you a unique understanding of an area with lots of tall structures such as skyscrapers.

If you've trying to find your way around Gainesville you won't need 3D view, but then you don't really need street view either.

Try to get a sense of place in Manhattan and you will appreciate Apple's Flyover.

I already have a comprehensive view of any city with all maps app. What I want with a StreetView-like service is to literally get a "street view" that can give me not only a perspective but specific data form eye level.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I already have a comprehensive view of any city with all maps app. What I want with a StreetView-like service is to literally get a "street view" that can give me not only a perspective but specific data form eye level.

You can't fly around a city and view buildings seamlessly from any angle using Google.

If you're just focused on finding a street address that's fine, but Apple Maps let you do more than that. Whatever functionality is missing now will come later.

I look at Apple Maps now like I looked at the first iPhone. It was missing a ton of stuff but the unique things it delivered were way ahead of everyone else. What started as a crappy 2 megapixel camera is now one of the best and most used consumer cameras in the country. Give them some time. In the mean time nothing prevents you from using a competing map product when necessary.

You can't fly around a city and view buildings seamlessly from any angle using Google.

If you're just focused on finding a street address that's fine, but Apple Maps let you do more than that. Whatever functionality is missing now will come later.

I look at Apple Maps now like I looked at the first iPhone. It was missing a ton of stuff but the unique things it delivered were way ahead of everyone else. What started as a crappy 2 megapixel camera is now one of the best and most used consumer cameras in the country. Give them some time.

I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.

100% serious. Google profits from Apple devices, Windows devices, mobile, desktop. . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that?

Google's business model is the exact opposite of Apple's.

Google is focused on delivering advanced cloud services that can be accessed on any dumb device (for "free" since the users are the product.)

Apple is focused on delivering an ecosystem of sophisticated devices while leveraging dumb, ubiquitous, interchangeable cloud storage services. The product isn't artificially cheap, because there's no hidden business model in trafficking their customer's personal data.

Each company is ferociously trying to promote what they're good at while cheapening what their competitor offers. At least that's the case now, since Google started the war with Android's targeting of the iPhone.

Google is dominant in web search, but that dominance eroding as the world moves from desktop to mobile... And since Google declared war on Apple, Apple is more than happy to exploit that vulnerability. Expect to see Google services increasingly marginalized by Apple.

I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.

I used 3D flyover when I bought my house. It was great to get an overall view of neighborhoods I was thinking about, where the parks and trails were, how the roads were laid out and so on. I used it the other day when trying to find out where my daughters astronomy club was meeting at the university (I had never been there) and the satellite view wasn't very helpful. That said, I don't use it often, but when I do it's very useful.

My kids also use it a lot to explore other cities around the world for class projects. Satellite images of the Eiffel Tower just don't cut it, nor do they give you any sense of grandeur.

I used 3D flyover when I bought my house. It was great to get an overall view of neighborhoods I was thinking about, where the parks and trails were, how the roads were laid out and so on. I used it the other day when trying to find out where my daughters astronomy club was meeting at the university (I had never been there) and the satellite view wasn't very helpful. That said, I don't use it often, but when I do it's very useful.

My kids also use it a lot to explore other cities around the world for class projects. Satellite images of the Eiffel Tower just don't cut it, nor do they give you any sense of grandeur.

Interesting uses, but I still contend that a StreetView-like service has more real world uses.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Internal politics is what has damaged Microsoft for many years. I hope this isn't going to be the future at Apple too.

I think that's an entirely valid concern, but as they say, "enjoy the sausage, but you don't want know how the sausage gets made."

I've collected and read anecdotes, articles, abs books written about Apple over the years, and conclude that:
1. Organizational issues are not uncommon when organizations reach a certain size
2. Apple can be a very stressful, but rewarding place to work, but the experience varies from person to person
3. Apple holds people accountable for results
4. Apple is internally very secretive
5. It isn't a 'fun' place to work like Google

The thing is: these aren't recent developments. This could describe Apple circa 1984, 1994, 2004 or 2014. I'm not sure this will sink Apple. For Apple or any large company to succeed, it takes good leadership to keep the "base of the organization pyramid" focused and moving in the right direction.

I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.

Instead of addressing the issue that Google has serious issues with its version of 3D maps, you try to minimize their usefulness and thereby turn a Google negative into an Apple negative. Bravo.

Still kinda funny that of all the problems Apple Maps had at the beginning, the most common complaint was with 3D maps. All the pictures the trolls continually repost are of this single feature. I wonder why that is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

100% serious. Google profits from Apple users, Windows users, mobile, desktop . . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that? Google is primarily services as is Microsoft. Apple is primarily hardware.

Let's see, increasing the price of Google Drive even though storage prices are actually dropping? Or reducing the number of accounts you get with Google Apps For Business? Giving away Android as a "free" OS and then go about locking it down so that it's 100% under Google control (Google Play Services)?

This is Google's MO. Offer something really useful for free (or dirt cheap), and once enough people are "locked in", then go about increasing the rates or locking it down. Who's to say that if Apple stuck with Google Maps that at some point in the future Google changes their terms and starts charging Apple more for access? Or places limits on what Apple can access so that Android users always get the best experience on Google Maps? It's not like Google has NEVER done anything like that before. /S

I think much of the overly clean 3D models Apple has are a result of showing off a gimmick wherever it counts most, like the Hoover Dam. It's not useful for navigation, but it looks pretty. Apple WANTS people to be only pointing to the pretty models, NOT the actual foundation of the product.

If that was a valid business philosophy then Google would still be just a search engine (and nothing more) and Apple would have never made notebooks, phones, music players etc. Just stuck with their desktop

Each company is ferociously trying to promote what they're good at while cheapening what their competitor offers. At least that's the case now, since Google started the war with Android's targeting of the iPhone.

Google is dominant in web search, but that dominance eroding as the world moves from desktop to mobile... And since Google declared war on Apple, Apple is more than happy to exploit that vulnerability. Expect to see Google services increasingly marginalized by Apple.

Google didn't declare war on Apple nor was Android an anti-iPhone development. Android was planned by Google to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans, before Apple had even announced they were building a smartphone. . Even DED acknowledges that.

Google didn't declare war on Apple nor was Android an anti-iPhone development. Android was planned by Google to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans, before Apple had even announced they were building a smartphone. . Even DED acknowledges that.

But as soon as the iPhone was announced they did switch gears to go after the iPhone.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Google didn't declare war on Apple nor was Android an anti-iPhone development. Android was planned by Google to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans, before Apple had even announced they were building a smartphone. . Even DED acknowledges that.

I seem to remember Google rewriting history stating they didn't want to the future of mobile tech being decidedly one man (Jobs) or one company (Apple).

Yes Google does purchase 3rd party sat imagery, but I'm fairly certain that at one time Google owned a fair chunk of DigiGlobe. They were/are one of their largest customers.

Agreed, presently live satellite feeds are only in the realm of the NSA, but in the future there will be live, high resolution photogrammetry. If I had to guess it would be within the next 20 years or so.

By linking directly to Google Maps anyone can follow the links. If they coded the links to open Apple Maps specifically, they wouldn't work for anyone using a non-Apple device. Can't complain about this situation until Apple opens up a web version of Apple Maps.

But as soon as the iPhone was announced they did switch gears to go after the iPhone.

What does "go after the iPhone" mean? Destroy the market for the iPhone or create an OS that could allow other companies to expand and compete with it? If the latter it's hardly an act of war. On the contrary Google benefits from Apple's success, making nearly every one of their features available to iPhones as well.

If one of the two is trying to push the other one out of mobile that would be Apple not Google IMHO. Google would happily share the market segment while I believe Apple would would be quite happy if every other company was pushed out. Apple doesn't benefit directly from any other company's success and wouldn't mind seeing everyone else go belly-up. Google is only successful when Apple, HTC, LG, Sony and mobile players like them are successful.Edited by Gatorguy - 6/10/14 at 5:07am

You can't fly around a city and view buildings seamlessly from any angle using Google.

If you're just focused on finding a street address that's fine, but Apple Maps let you do more than that. Whatever functionality is missing now will come later.

I look at Apple Maps now like I looked at the first iPhone. It was missing a ton of stuff but the unique things it delivered were way ahead of everyone else. What started as a crappy 2 megapixel camera is now one of the best and most used consumer cameras in the country. Give them some time.

I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.

Charter a helicopter at a cost of however many thousands of dollars versus free with Fyover.

Mapping has a lot more to do with data gathering, organization, storage and access (both on and offline) than it has to do with software features. The Mapping software is relatively easy to develop but if your data is not great to begin with, no amount of software design will help. For example, Flyover renders beautiful 3D maps. They are the best 3D city maps I have ever seen. However if you want directions to a particular store in an outdoor mall, Maps will leave you at the entrance to the parking lot and force you to drive around looking or asking for directions. The way you make an exceptional mapping app is to either hire or buy feet on the ground. Google did this with their streetview cars. Apple needs to get serious about gathering real data from the world. This could be done by leveraging the phones everyone carries around to a small degree but mostly they need to do something like Streetview where they drive data gathering vehicles around. This is expensive but if you want to compete with Google you have to do the types of data gathering that Google does. When Google's self driving cars start to report back what they see as they drive around they will have centimeter accurate 3D maps of every street in the world. When Google's Project Loon takes off, not only will its balloons provide free wireless access to the internet to the entire world, they will record real time images of the Earth below them. This is what the mapping of 2020 looks like.

If one of the two is trying to push the other one out of mobile that would be Apple not Google IMHO. Google would happily share the market segment while I believe Apple would would be quite happy if every other company was pushed out. Apple doesn't benefit directly from any other company's success and wouldn't mind seeing everyone else go belly-up. Google is only successful when Apple, HTC, LG, Sony and mobile players like them are successful.

I forgot that Google is the knight in shining armor, protecting our right to choose as long as it's a Google service.

Things are only black and white to you? Not attacking Apple is hardly claiming Google to be a knight in shining armor. Reductio ad absurdum. . .

Not black and white. If Google didn't care about market share, why even bother with Android to begin with. They could sell ads on all the platforms and behave decently for a change. Why are they offering free services if they could play ball in the ad games.

Apple couldn't care less about the low end market so they have conceded it to those willing to play at that end.

Not black and white. If Google didn't care about market share, why even bother with Android to begin with. They could sell ads on all the platforms and behave decently for a change. Why are they offering free services if they could play ball in the ad games.

Apple couldn't care less about the low end market so they have conceded it to those willing to play at that end.

Why are you bringing up market share, and without even defining what market you're talking about? As for why Google would offer free services that's simple common business sense IMHO. If you really can't figure it out tho I'll take a stab at trying to explain it to you.

Why are you bringing up market share, and without even defining what market you're talking about? As for why Google would offer free services that's simple common business sense IMHO. If you really can't figure it out tho I'll take a stab at trying to explain it to you.

You brought it up saying Apple wants to force the other guys out of mobile.

Let's see Google has "simple common business sense" and Apple is a bully.

You brought it up saying Apple wants to force the other guys out of mobile.

Let's see Google has "simple common business sense" and Apple is a bully.

Actually I said Apple would probably be happy if all the other players were pushed out of mobile, not that Apple was actively trying to push them out. Why would you construe that as being a bully? With Google and Apple specifically it's two different businesses that depend on different models for their success. Google wants to work with everyone and on every platform. Apple does not, as least so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

If one of the two is trying to push the other one out of mobile that would be Apple not Google IMHO. Google would happily share the market segment while I believe Apple would would be quite happy if every other company was pushed out. Apple doesn't benefit directly from any other company's success and wouldn't mind seeing everyone else go belly-up. Google is only successful when Apple, HTC, LG, Sony and mobile players like them are successful.

I can think of a few ways they could leapfrog street view. Last thing Apple should do is copy Google out of a lack of inspiration. Apple's job is to show people something they DIDN'T know they wanted until you showed it to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna

If that was a valid business philosophy then Google would still be just a search engine (and nothing more) and Apple would have never made notebooks, phones, music players etc. Just stuck with their desktop

I only have a certificate in GIS (Geographical Information Systems). Mapping accurately is hard, especially when your data comes from multiple sources.

There is not a right or wrong to all of this. I only wished that Apple had waited to come out with something a little better.

Actually I said Apple would probably be happy if all the other players were pushed out of mobile, not that Apple was actively trying to push them out. Why would you construe that as being a bully? With Google and Apple specifically it's two different businesses that depend on different models for their success. Google wants to work with everyone and on every platform. Apple does not, as least so far.

Yes Google does purchase 3rd party sat imagery, but I'm fairly certain that at one time Google owned a fair chunk of DigiGlobe. They were/are one of their largest customers.

Agreed, presently live satellite feeds are only in the realm of the NSA, but in the future there will be live, high resolution photogrammetry. If I had to guess it would be within the next 20 years or so.

Well I had this correct (that Google was headed towards live sat info) but my time horizon was off. This is what the WSJ had to say about Skybox Imaging (the company Google just purchased for $500M):

"For 1/38th the price of WhatsApp, Google acquired Skybox Imaging, which puts satellites into orbit 185 miles above Earth on the tip of the same Russian missiles that once threatened the U.S. with nuclear destruction. And here's what Skybox could allow Google to accomplish: Within a couple of years, when you want to know whether you left your porch light on or if your teenager borrowed the car you forbade her to drive, you might check Google Maps.

That's because by 2016 or so, Skybox will be able to take full images of the Earth twice a day, at a resolution that until last week was illegal to sell commercially—all with just a half-dozen satellites. By the time its entire fleet of 24 satellites has launched in 2018, Skybox will be imaging the entire Earth at a resolution sufficient to capture, for example, real-time video of cars driving down the highway. And it will be doing it three times a day."

AND apparently the Commerce department has just increased allowable sat resolution for commercial sale to a resolution of 0.25 metres.